More than 400 domestic COVID-19 cases have been reported in Taiwan this year, and new daily case counts remain in the double digits.
The CECC on Monday extended a level 2 COVID-19 alert for two more weeks, slightly tightening mask rules, but allowing indoor dining and not imposing gathering limits.
“We need to get on with our lives, so everyone should be responsible for disease prevention and get vaccinated, as remaining vigilant has become the ‘new normal,’” Minister of Health and Welfare Chen Shih-chung (陳時中), who heads the Central Epidemic Command Center (CECC), said on Thursday.
Many people have expressed concerns about increased infection risks as people move about during the Lunar New Year holidays. This could lead to a surge in cases, and some questioned why the alert was not raised to level 3, as the local situation has met last year’s criteria of “having more than three local clusters of infections within one week.”
Responding to public concerns, the center on Thursday released a set of COVID-19 prevention guidelines for the holidays, mainly reminding people to practice personal protective measures, avoid crowded gatherings with strangers, get fully vaccinated, wear a mask and practice social distancing when meeting people.
Chen said that family gatherings are an important part of family relationships, and celebrations can take place as long as people practice preventive measures.
The policies now are much looser than those implemented during the Dragon Boat Festival long weekend in June last year, when the government reduced public transportation and urged people to avoid traveling home.
“Zero COVID is not our goal, but it is our attitude in conducting disease prevention operations,” said Victor Wang (王必勝), deputy head of the CECC’s medical response division and the center’s on-site commander at several large cluster infection sites.
The minister’s mention of the “new normal” seems to suggest that the center is shifting toward a risk mitigation strategy, as eradicating the highly transmissible Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 is difficult, and tools to protect people against serious illness and death have become widely available.
Instead of significantly tightening domestic restrictions and imposing fines, the center is asking everyone to assess their risk and shoulder the responsibility of disease prevention.
However, when the CECC emphasizes a rolling review of policies in response to the rapidly changing COVID-19 environment, it can be confusing to the public. Previous criteria for issuing alert levels, conducting mandatory testing and placing contacts under isolation are no longer reliable, and the visions for a “new normal” remain indistinct.
What does it mean when the center is taking a “zero COVID” approach, yet people must prepare to live with the virus? How does the government plan to balance public health and reduce disruption to society? And how do people assess their risk and make the best choices if living with COVID-19 is inevitable?
Aside from reporting the latest daily case counts, contact tracing progress and measures taken to contain the spread of infections, it would be helpful if the CECC offered analytical data from scientific studies on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions and the recommended vaccine doses needed to protect people from COVID-19 infection or severe disease.
The government should review its isolation policy and other guidelines that have become less effective in defeating the Omicron variant. It should also inform the public about the nation’s healthcare capacity. These measures along with clear communication would help the public remain relatively safe and live with COVID-19.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS